on Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 03:05:03PM +1100, Craig Small (csmall@eye-net.com.au) wrote: > G'day, > I'm the maintainer of the procps package. The latest version has a > binary called pgrep (short for process grep). Unfortunately this name > clashes with a binary in the pgrep (perl compatible grep) package. > > Two packages with same binary, a policy violation (i got 3 serious level > bugs about it already). The pgrep in procps came second. > > I can change pgrep to another name. The problem is that pgrep is a > reasonably standard name for a process grep program (such as in some > Solarises). > > I'm not sure what should be done here. Obviously one has to change its > name. I really don't want to harras the pgrep maintainer. If I do > change it, what do i change it to? procgrep? procgrep gets my vote. psgrep, suggested elsewhere, is ambiguous and might be seen as a tool to grep through ps output. I don't believe this is what you intend. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
Attachment:
pgpN43bo5QzrZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature